User talk:KaiStr

A use of material from published papers
Dear User, it appeared that you copied and pasted some of the material from my published papers when you described my contribution. Thank you very much for your respect to my work. However, copy and paste of previously published work is not allowed, so I edited the fragments that you posted (paraphrased it). So, just note that in the future it is better do not use the exact text that has been published, but use your own words. You will find the comments from other users in regards to copyrights on the talk pages that include references to my papers. Iratrofimov (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this editing, I will watch for copyrights more attentively in the future. However, it is my believe that journals don't own copyrights for phrases and texts - only authors do, but journals own an image of the page, with their logos on, etc. Authors own the idea, and distributors own the packaging of the idea. KaiStr (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear User, thank you for your extensive edit of the Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex. I noticed that you had several attempts to add a diagram with the Redundancy Pruning idea and it was cut out. I suggest to take it easy and just leave the pictures as is. If you find the Redundancy Pruning idea useful you can always just create another Wiki page. However, I agree that the section comparing the ETS was deleted without justification and should be restored. I also noticed that the page doesn't cite my papers correctly: I published an extensive paper in the Journal of American Psychology on the ETS, also in 2016, prior to that a shorter paper in 2011 in the Preceding of Nature Neurosciences (http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5562/version/1), whereas the PLoS paper makes the parallels to the ETS only briefly. Iratrofimov (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Iratrofimov, I made the changes.KaiStr (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

For improvement of the article Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex
Dear user, I suggest the following improvement (based on the discussion posted in the past week) of this page:


 * a return of the deleted introduction about the context of the theory (i.e. the problem with an explanation of the benefits of sexual reproduction). I saw the introduction, it was very basic and didn't need detail references except having a link to the Evolution of sexual reproduction page.
 * deleting the reference to a non-existing personal page of Geodakyan (I think it was done already but Staszek Lem keeps undoing-it - could you please stop messing it up?)
 * adding a section on the difference from other theories;
 * returning the deleted text with references to additional sources using this theory;
 * adding references to other scholar's work who analysed this theory, even in non-English publications
 * for Staszek Lem - please discuss and justify cutting big parts of the text in this page (as you did several times already), and KaiStr might benefit from looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings, to protect the page. We invite other wikipedians and experts to contribute to improvement of the page, including their knowledge of criticism and upgrades but it's basis should be taken care of. In my experience with a description of various theories in the Wikipedia, updates of the pages about these theories mostly relate to their criticism or more precise description of their details. Such updates, however, come as a second wave of page's existence, and first the page should be established. Iratrofimov (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that the page Evolutionary Theory of Sex should not be combined with other pages and should exist on its own

License tagging for File:ETS-Prun-g.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ETS-Prun-g.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Shootingstar88
Are you ? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am not, but the name sounds impressive :) I wonder what is the story about that user... KaiStr (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

 * Acdcording to wikipedia policy WP:COI, please state your association with Trofimova and Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex. You appear to have a conflict of interest in this subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not in a position of demanding it, however, as a one-time courtesy I made a short statement in this regards. Yet, you cut the section on the ETS page again. You have no grounds now, so please restore the page as it was. Otherwise you leave me no choice but to go to administrators.KaiStr (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes any wikipedian is in a position of demanding it. You have an obvious conflict of interest here. If you refuse to acknowledge it and investigation confirms this, you will be banned from editing these topics.
 * I give you a little slact with the text you reinserted. I tagged all statements which must be supportes by independent sources. If you did not provide independent references, it will be deleted again. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you edit previously under the account ? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't - I already replied to it!KaiStr (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Geodakyan Evolutionary Theory of Sex


A tag has been placed on Geodakyan Evolutionary Theory of Sex, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ... disco spinster   talk  16:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I contested the deletion, but my contesting note was practically immediately dismissed, while I was typing my arguments to keep it.KaiStr (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

See this for my opinion on the flaws in the rules for deletion, which should be discussed by Administration, and unfair deletion of the ETS page, as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malcolmxl5#Your_deletion_of_the_ETS_page_was_not_based_on_a_true_consensus_between_scientists KaiStr (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)